"is not in compliance"

sort of makes you think the legislator thought it might apply broader than hunting?

This is the title of that section 29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

very clearly doesnt apply

He wasn't hunting and he wasnt under 16 (but it appears that hunting is the key part of that )

Yes, Kyle wasn't hunting.

what would that mean in legal-english. "Hunting and use" ? That would mean "hunting OR other" here.

Does it mean "Hunting and use" in the manner: "Used while hunting"?

Im still confused @Doc .... why do you believe its a problem that counsel of the victims or their families were present? All criminal proceedings are open to the public.

Owning a short-barrelled rifle is a felony already. I don't know why on earth this statute is being interpreted to suggest that this is just an extra criminal charge for someone that owns an SBR.

Yeah... I see what you are saying on the "other use issue" seems to imply something other than hunting. Oddly worded law

@JD~Jordan Scroll up, it was very well explained by @Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War)

It is in conflict with the presumption of innocence.

I dont see it but whatever

And you commonly see in court cases here council for the presumed victim to act as co-prosecutor.

Now, not being in compliance with hunting laws (which requires you to be, you know, hunting) means that the under 18 rule applies.

What is in conflict with the presumption of innocence?

@Maw Ya, I saw that now. The entire law is a hunting law.

This is the argument, and it's a very persuasive argument, far more persuasive that (2)(a) means literally nothing in the statute.

@JD~Jordan Claiming a victim.

These things have to be public. Speedy and PUBLIC trial is what our Constitution says. So long as they did not participate there is no issue.

The STATE - the prosecutor is claiming there are victims

The other attorneys are just there to witness a public hearing

Not true.

I would be way way more concerned if they were not present

The task of victims council, at least here, is to look after the legal interests of the victim.

Of course

Not to merely witness.

But if they did not participate what is the problem?

Were they allowed to ask questions? (if so that is problematic)

The state claims a victim. That victim has council. This validates the victim`s status and effects jury and witnesses.

Just a simple question did they participate or not? I didnt watch after it froze on me

That is a problem. Not to say that it is wrong to have them there, victims do need legal assistance. Just that it is a situation where you have to weigh two principles against eachother.

OMG... did they participate?

@JD~Jordan I dont know. I didnt watch the whole thing. The principle was what we were discussing, not that exact case.

Principle versus occurrence.

Ok. Well unless they participated there is no issue. As if not for covid this hearing would have been in a court room open to the public and those lawyers could sit and watch like anyone else. The transcript to the hearing is also available

Just like we did

I wrote a very short brief of the hearing.

Thankies

Did you include the faceplant and Kyles dive?